Planet Rugby Forum

Not sure I understand the question. This is money being declared leaving the country legally?

What is the inference or even relevance?

Not sure what Leo has done, according to that article, anyway. It was Coppinger shouting it down, no? And Leo blandly saying it's probably legit?

The Irish sent money home.

The American Government didn't send their fúcking welfare to the GPO for collection.

It's like Grealish, Varadkar and Coppinger are all having three separate conversations.

Blackrock Bullet wrote:It's also pointless talking about the Irish sending money back home back in the day. It's up there with the "let the refugees in, what about the Irish going abroad for years" argument put forward.

Surely the point is that we have a lot of immigrants bolstering our economy, as happened in reverse in the past, and those people are entitled to spend their money as they want?

Is the inference that's there's proceeds from illegal sources or what? Or just a complaint about the money leaving the country.

CM11 wrote:Not sure I understand the question. This is money being declared leaving the country legally?

What is the inference or even relevance?

Not sure what Leo has done, according to that article, anyway. It was Coppinger shouting it down, no? And Leo blandly saying it's probably legit?

He's not questioning the legality statto.

Try not to always go down the pedantic track.

Mullet 2 wrote:

CM11 wrote:Not sure I understand the question. This is money being declared leaving the country legally?

What is the inference or even relevance?

Not sure what Leo has done, according to that article, anyway. It was Coppinger shouting it down, no? And Leo blandly saying it's probably legit?

He's not questioning the legality statto.

Try not to always go down the pedantic track.

I'm really not. I just want to understand the issue. Hence the 'I don't understand'.

He's simply asking if the money being sent abroad has a legitimate source.

Fairly standard really, nobody can buy a property with complying with anti-money laundering so asking if cash transfers and money orders are subject to the same seems fairly OK with me.

Mullet 2 wrote:He's simply asking if the money being sent abroad has a legitimate source.

Fairly standard really, nobody can buy a property with complying with anti-money laundering so asking if cash transfers and money orders are subject to the same seems fairly OK with me.

So he is questioning the legality?

This is presumably money being transferred electronically? So is the suggestion that it's being laundered through legit accounts?

CM11 wrote:

Mullet 2 wrote:He's simply asking if the money being sent abroad has a legitimate source.

Fairly standard really, nobody can buy a property with complying with anti-money laundering so asking if cash transfers and money orders are subject to the same seems fairly OK with me.

So he is questioning the legality?

This is presumably money being transferred electronically? So is the suggestion that it's being laundered through legit accounts?

Haven't a rashers

And asking if there are checks and questioning legality are not the same thing.

Mullet 2 wrote:

CM11 wrote:

Mullet 2 wrote:He's simply asking if the money being sent abroad has a legitimate source.

Fairly standard really, nobody can buy a property with complying with anti-money laundering so asking if cash transfers and money orders are subject to the same seems fairly OK with me.

So he is questioning the legality?

This is presumably money being transferred electronically? So is the suggestion that it's being laundered through legit accounts?

Haven't a rashers

And asking if there are checks and questioning legality are not the same thing.

I'm not sure if we're talking at crossed purposes. On the face of it I've no problem with Grealish's question and am perplexed at Coppinger's racist remark. However, I fail to see the distinction between 'asking if the money has a legitimate source' and 'questioning the legality of it [the money]'.

Anyway, I think we're broadly in agreement. More money being transferred to Nigeria compared to the UK over the last 10 years does seem out of whack.

Mullet 2 wrote:

CM11 wrote:

Duff Paddy wrote:That’s as close to a concession as you’ll get from Statto - and I’ve known the fucker for 20years

Yet nothing from you? Sounds about right.

It's the Paul Murphy water charges argument

"It's paid for out of central taxation"

Except it’s nothing like that because I pay MOTOR tax on two cars. Christ I suppose it is foolish to expect anything better from someone belonging to a party whose leader today suggested a nationwide mandatory rent freeze. Okay comrade?

Blackrock Bullet wrote:https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/1 ... lish-dail/

Woke Leo strikes again. Closer to Ruth Coppinger than an ex PD.

Fianna Failers our in force doing a sterling job on burying Comrade Martin’s comments today

You want to use the roads for nothing so I'll take no accusations from you Pinko.

Duff Paddy wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/1 ... lish-dail/

Woke Leo strikes again. Closer to Ruth Coppinger than an ex PD.

Fianna Failers our in force doing a sterling job on burying Comrade Martin’s comments today

Well you're not helping! Link.

Duff Paddy wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/1 ... lish-dail/

Woke Leo strikes again. Closer to Ruth Coppinger than an ex PD.

Fianna Failers our in force doing a sterling job on burying Comrade Martin’s comments today

Say what now?

CM11 wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:It's also pointless talking about the Irish sending money back home back in the day. It's up there with the "let the refugees in, what about the Irish going abroad for years" argument put forward.

Surely the point is that we have a lot of immigrants bolstering our economy, as happened in reverse in the past, and those people are entitled to spend their money as they want?

Is the inference that's there's proceeds from illegal sources or what? Or just a complaint about the money leaving the country.

Ole ham faced Grealish is catching a boat on a rising tide is probably the root of the issue. Proper arguments are needed to counter this, rather than taking the easy road and calling the plum a racist.

CM11 wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:It's also pointless talking about the Irish sending money back home back in the day. It's up there with the "let the refugees in, what about the Irish going abroad for years" argument put forward.

Surely the point is that we have a lot of immigrants bolstering our economy, as happened in reverse in the past, and those people are entitled to spend their money as they want?

Is the inference that's there's proceeds from illegal sources or what? Or just a complaint about the money leaving the country.

That's not really the point though. Back then there was not robust tax and welfare systems like there is now.

If amounts are taxable (or criminal), in principle we should know whether it is. It's like the overall welfare fraud point. It may not be a big issue but to put the head in the sand about it is a nonsense. This is billions we're talking about - if there's scrutiny on corporate paying taxes there should be here.

Blackrock Bullet wrote:

CM11 wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:It's also pointless talking about the Irish sending money back home back in the day. It's up there with the "let the refugees in, what about the Irish going abroad for years" argument put forward.

Surely the point is that we have a lot of immigrants bolstering our economy, as happened in reverse in the past, and those people are entitled to spend their money as they want?

Is the inference that's there's proceeds from illegal sources or what? Or just a complaint about the money leaving the country.

That's not really the point though. Back then there was not robust tax and welfare systems like there is now.

If amounts are taxable (or criminal), in principle we should know whether it is. It's like the overall welfare fraud point. It may not be a big issue but to put the head in the sand about it is a nonsense. This is billions we're talking about - if there's scrutiny on corporate paying taxes there should be here.

It's unlikely that they're going to go after money that is earned but not taxed, not anymore than they normally would anyway.

More likely is going after money laundering but trying to figure that out would also be an issue.

I've a feeling that the amount of effort required to attack this problem properly is what has the government balking and trying to dismiss it as a problem at all.

Blackrock Bullet wrote:

Duff Paddy wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/1 ... lish-dail/

Woke Leo strikes again. Closer to Ruth Coppinger than an ex PD.

Fianna Failers our in force doing a sterling job on burying Comrade Martin’s comments today

Say what now?

Comrade Martin is pulling a populist move that would make Corbyn blush

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/p ... 85116.html

Nah, Varadkar had no problem with the "Welfare Cheats cheat us all" slogan when pretending to be a fiscal conservative.

Duff Paddy wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:

Duff Paddy wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/1 ... lish-dail/

Woke Leo strikes again. Closer to Ruth Coppinger than an ex PD.

Fianna Failers our in force doing a sterling job on burying Comrade Martin’s comments today

Say what now?

Comrade Martin is pulling a populist move that would make Corbyn blush

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/p ... 85116.html

Well that is standard MO in Irish political life. All parties are to the centre and out to the left, with short term populism to the fore.

Not sure what that has to do with the "burying" Comrade Martin's comment point? Are you talking about me? Grealish? I am no FFer and Grealish isn't. Not sure what your point even is - if Martin is trying to be populist, then why would FFers want the comment to be buried?

Irish Times headline on front page.

TD accused of racism after questioning billions in remittances sent to Nigeria

Article;

During leaders’ question in the Dáil on Tuesday the Galway West TD said a “staggering” amount of money had been sent abroad through personal transfers with the largest remittances going to Lithuania (€843 million), France (€1 billion), Poland (€1.54 billion), UK (€2.7 billion) and Nigeria (€3.54 billion).

Why are elements of the Irish media picking out Nigeria in their headline reporting?

Blackrock Bullet wrote:Irish Times headline on front page.

TD accused of racism after questioning billions in remittances sent to Nigeria

Article;

During leaders’ question in the Dáil on Tuesday the Galway West TD said a “staggering” amount of money had been sent abroad through personal transfers with the largest remittances going to Lithuania (€843 million), France (€1 billion), Poland (€1.54 billion), UK (€2.7 billion) and Nigeria (€3.54 billion).

Why are elements of the Irish media picking out Nigeria in their headline reporting?

That is a lot of money going to Nigeria, I'm shocked the money from Ireland to UK isn't the largest

France is one that surprises me there tbh. I'd expect large remittances to the likes of Poland, Lithania and Nigeria (this level might be high, not sure) as the majority are economic migrants where as with the UK I suspect it is largely one offs/child maintenance in nature.

Mullet 2 wrote:It's a legitimate question from Grealish.

Leo is becoming more and more pathetic by the day. It's shouting down stuff like this that leads to cúnts like Farage.

Badly phrased and likely to cause trouble.

Blackrock Bullet wrote:

iarmhiman wrote:RUC were the same as the RIC before Independence.

Cnuts to a man

Bizarre and pretty ignorant post.

Truely devastated you think so

A Recruitment consultant I know got in CV today under work history 2001-present: Jobseeking

Busy day on here. Bikes again I see

anonymous_joe wrote:

Mullet 2 wrote:It's a legitimate question from Grealish.

Leo is becoming more and more pathetic by the day. It's shouting down stuff like this that leads to cúnts like Farage.

Badly phrased and likely to cause trouble.

It's probably more his previous comments on the subject that have people reading into his comments a certain way.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-n ... y-20058320

Luckycharmer wrote:A Recruitment consultant I know got in CV today under work history 2001-present: Jobseeking

I had an interview earlier today and my current job might as well have been 2001-present: Jobseeking. Fuck me it did not go well.

Mullet 2 wrote:The Irish sent money home.

The American Government didn't send their fúcking welfare to the GPO for collection.

That's the choice of our judiciary and government, and would probably (according to the legal eagles) require a referendum to change the constitution to change.

I kid you not.

Now to you and me, it may seem reasonable to expect the family of a recipient of SW to be resident within the state. But, apparently, our constitution doesn't make this specific.

ANd no one will touch it with a bargepole.

paddyor wrote:

anonymous_joe wrote:

Mullet 2 wrote:It's a legitimate question from Grealish.

Leo is becoming more and more pathetic by the day. It's shouting down stuff like this that leads to cúnts like Farage.

Badly phrased and likely to cause trouble.

It's probably more his previous comments on the subject that have people reading into his comments a certain way.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-n ... y-20058320

He has form.

Dont see the problem. If it's their money and already taxed it's their right to send money home.

Grealish was insinuating the source of the money was not legal. Not helpful.

For welfare fraud we do have habitual residence condition that helps stop people flying in and taking dole home.

camroc1 wrote:

Mullet 2 wrote:The Irish sent money home.

The American Government didn't send their fúcking welfare to the GPO for collection.

That's the choice of our judiciary and government, and would probably (according to the legal eagles) require a referendum to change the constitution to change.

I kid you not.

Now to you and me, it may seem reasonable to expect the family of a recipient of SW to be resident within the state. But, apparently, our constitution doesn't make this specific.

ANd no one will touch it with a bargepole.

I thought we had it.

camroc1 wrote:

Mullet 2 wrote:The Irish sent money home.

The American Government didn't send their fúcking welfare to the GPO for collection.

That's the choice of our judiciary and government, and would probably (according to the legal eagles) require a referendum to change the constitution to change.

I kid you not.

Now to you and me, it may seem reasonable to expect the family of a recipient of SW to be resident within the state. But, apparently, our constitution doesn't make this specific.

ANd no one will touch it with a bargepole.

I thought we had it. Habitual Residence Condition??

iarmhiman wrote:

camroc1 wrote:

Mullet 2 wrote:The Irish sent money home.

The American Government didn't send their fúcking welfare to the GPO for collection.

That's the choice of our judiciary and government, and would probably (according to the legal eagles) require a referendum to change the constitution to change.

I kid you not.

Now to you and me, it may seem reasonable to expect the family of a recipient of SW to be resident within the state. But, apparently, our constitution doesn't make this specific.

ANd no one will touch it with a bargepole.

I thought we had it.

The claimant has to live in the state, his family don't.

iarmhiman wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:

iarmhiman wrote:RUC were the same as the RIC before Independence.

Cnuts to a man

Bizarre and pretty ignorant post.

Truely devastated you think so

This is the same as you claiming yesterday that Weatherspoons didn’t serve craft beer.

How on earth can you claim that RIC members were wit kant to a man? Do you think you’d have been in a flying column or something?

Blackrock Bullet wrote:

iarmhiman wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:

iarmhiman wrote:RUC were the same as the RIC before Independence.

Cnuts to a man

Bizarre and pretty ignorant post.

Truely devastated you think so

This is the same as you claiming yesterday that Weatherspoons didn’t serve craft beer.

How on earth can you claim that RIC members were plum to a man? Do you think you’d have been in a flying column or something?

I cant . My grand father can. Not going to spend hours arguing about. Dont like what I say, your problem

camroc1 wrote:

iarmhiman wrote:

camroc1 wrote:

Mullet 2 wrote:The Irish sent money home.

The American Government didn't send their fúcking welfare to the GPO for collection.

That's the choice of our judiciary and government, and would probably (according to the legal eagles) require a referendum to change the constitution to change.

I kid you not.

Now to you and me, it may seem reasonable to expect the family of a recipient of SW to be resident within the state. But, apparently, our constitution doesn't make this specific.

ANd no one will touch it with a bargepole.

I thought we had it.

The claimant has to live in the state, his family don't.

I'd imagine it's more open to fraud to EU immigrants as once they initially satisfy the condition , there is nothing else to monitor them as they have freedom of movement.

Non eu need resident permits and are more likely to arouse suspicions if they engage in benefit fraud. Also plenty of non EU look to become naturalised overtime. INIS check for things like this when considering citizenship.

Well done, your grandad was one of the minority in the IRA. That makes you feel all brave does it? More people were in the RIC. More Irish people can trace ancestors to the RIC than the IRA. Shittalking about people, most of whom were ordinary Catholics, who grew in a time of genuine deprivation for taking a decent paying job is rank stupidity.

What do you think about the two officers murdered at Soloheadbeg? An operation not authorised by any Government or Parliament. One of those men was a widower who left behind orphans. 1 in 5 of the RIC members who resigned due to threats on their lives and couldn’t put food on the table?

https://www.google.ie/amp/www.thejourna ... 6/%3famp=1

This guy a wit kant?

The bravado from swivel chair Republicans pig ignorant of history is an awful look.

Not to hijack the discussion, but the RIC were a semi-military armed police force throughout their existence, who, notably, lived in military style barracks, rather than amongst the people.

That said, as the war of independence continued, there were large numbers of people leaving the RIC, whether voluntarily or under threat, and it was for this reason, plus having men that the authorities knew were prepared to act 'dirty', which, again in fairness, many of the RIC weren't, that the Auxiliaries, and 'Black and Tans' were imported from GB.